Skip to main content

Full text of "The Green Book: Part One, The Solution of the Problem of Democracy"

See other formats

The Green Book: Part One 

Muammar Al Qathafi 


Part One 

The Solution of the 
Problem of 


'The Authority of 
the People' 

Table of Contents 

1. The Instrument of Governing 

2. Parliaments 

3. The Party 

4. Class 

5. Plebiscites 

6. Popular Congresses and People's Committees 

7. The Law of Society 

8. Who Supervises the Conduct of Society? 

9. How Does Society Readjust its Direction in Case of Deviation from its Law? 

10. The Press 

Chapter One 


'The Instrument of Governing is the prime 
political problem which faces human com- 

Even the conflict within the family is, 
often, the result of this problem. 

'This problem has become serious since the 
emergence of modern societies.' 

Peoples, nowadays, face this persistent 
problem and communities suffer from va- 
rious risks and grave consequences to which 
it leads. They have not yet succeeded in 
solving it finally and democratically. 

The GREEN BOOK presents the final 
solution to the problem of the instrument of 

All political systems in the world today 
are the product of the struggle for power 
between instruments of governing. The 
struggle may be peaceful or armed, such as 
the conflict of classes, sects, tribes, parties or 
individuals. The result is always the victory 
of an instrument of governing — be it an 
individual, group, party or class and the 
defeat of the people, i.e. the defeat of genuine 

Political struggle that results in the vic- 
tory of a candidate with 5 1 per cent of the 
votes leads to a dictatorial governing body 
disguised as a false democracy, since 49 per 
cent of the electorate is ruled by an instru- 
ment of governing they did not vote for, but 
had imposed upon them. This is dictatorship. 
Besides, this political conflict may produce a 
governing body that represents only a 
minority, for when votes are distributed 
among several candidates, one of them polls 
more than any other candidate. But if the 
votes polled by those who received less are 

added up, they can constitute an over- 
whelming majority. However, the candidate 
with fewer votes wins and his success is 
regarded as legitimate and democratic ! In 
actual fact, dictatorship is established under 
the cover of false democracy. This is the 
reality of the political systems prevailing in 
the world today. They are dictatorial systems 
and it seems clear that they falsify genuine 

Chapter Two 


Parliaments are the backbone of 
traditional democracy as it exists to- 
day. A parliament is a misrepresenta- 
tion of the people and parliamentary 
governments are a misleading solution 
to the problem of democracy. A parlia- 
ment is originally founded to represent 
the people, but this in itself, is undemo- 
cratic as democracy means the author- 
ity of the people and not an authority 
acting on their behalf. The mere exist- 
ence of a parliament means the abs- 
ence of the people, but true democracy 
exists only through the participation of 
the people, not through the activity of 
their representatives. Parliaments 
have been a legal barrier between the 
peoples and the exercise of authority, 
excluding masses from power while 
usurping sovereignty in their place. 
Peoples are left with only false exter- 
nal appearance of democracy man- 
ifested in long queues to cast their 
votes in the ballot boxes. 

To lay bare the character of the 
parliament, we have to look to the 
origin of such a parliament. The par- 
liament is either elected from consti- 
tuencies or a party or a coalition of 
parties, or is formed by some method 
of appointment. But all these proce- 
dures are undemocratic, for dividing 
the population into constituencies 
means that one member of parliament 
represents thousands, hundreds of 
thousands or millions of people, de- 
pending on the size of population. It 
also means that the member keeps no 
popular organisational link with the 
electors since he, like other members. 


lin lieu of the 


lis a denial of 


lis a falsification 
lof democracy 

is looked upon as a representative of 
the whole people. This is what the 
prevailing traditional democracy re- 
quires. The masses, therefore, are 
completely isolated from the represen- 
tative and he, in turn, is totally sepa- 
rated from them. For immediately 
after winning their votes he himself 
usurps their sovereignty and acts in- 
stead of them. The prevailing tradi- 
tional democracy endows the member 
of a parliament with a sacredness and 
immunity denied to other individual 
members of the people. That means 
that parliaments have become a 
means of plundering and usurping the 
people's authority. Hence the people 
have the right to struggle, through the 
popular revolution, to destroy instru- 
ments which usurp democracy and 
sovereignty and take them away from 
the masses. They also have the right 
to utter the new principle, no rep- 
resentation in lieu of the peo- 
ple. If, however, the parliament 
emerges from a party as a result of 
winning an election, it is a parliament 
of the party and not of the people. It 
represents the party and not the peo- 
ple, and the executive power assigned 
by the parliament is that of the winning 
party and not of the people. The same 
is true of the parliament in which each 
party holds a number of seats. For the 
members of the parliament represent 
their party and not the people, and the 
power established by such a coalition 
is the power of the combined parties 
and not of the people. Under such 
systems the people are victims fooled 
and exploited by political bodies. The 
people stand silently in long queues to 
cast their votes in the ballot boxes 
the same way as they throw other 
papers into the dustbin. This is the 
traditional democracy prevalent in the 

whole world, whether the system is 
one-party, two-party, multi-party or 
non-party. Thus it becomes clear that 
representation is fraud. Assemblies 
formed by a method of appointment or 
hereditary succession do not fall under 
any form of democracy. Moreover, 
since the system of elected parlia- 
ments is based on propaganda to win 
votes, it is a demagogic system in the 
real sense of the word, and votes can 
be bought and falsified. Poor people 
fail to compete in the election cam- 
paign and it is always the rich — and 
only the rich — who come out victo- 

Philosophers, thinkers and writers 
advocated the theory of representative 
government at a time when the peo- 
ples, without realising it, were driven 
like sheep by kings, sultans and con- 
querors. The ultimate aspiration of the 
people of those times was to have 
someone to represent them before such 
rulers. Even that aspiration was nulli- 
fied. Peoples went through long and 
bitter struggles to attain what they 
aspired to. After the successful estab- 
lishment of the era of the republics and 
the beginning of the era of the masses, 
it is unreasonable that democracy 
should mean the electing of only a few 
representatives to act on behalf of 
great masses. This is an obsolete 
theory and an outdated experience. 
The whole authority must be the peo- 

The most tyrannical dictatorships 
the world has known have existed 
under the shadow of parliaments. 

Chapter Three 


The party is the contemporary dicta- 
torship. It is the modern dictatorial 
instrument of governing. The party is 
the rule of a part over the whole. It is 
the latest dictatorial instrument. As 
the party is not individual it exercises 
a sham democracy through estab- 
lishing parliaments and committees 
and through the propaganda of its 
members. The party is not a democra- 
tic instrument at all because it is 
composed of people who have common 
interests, a common outlook or a com- 
mon culture; or who belong to the 
same locality or have the same belief. 
They form a party to achieve their 
ends, impose their outlook or extend 
the hold of their belief on the society as 
a whole. A party's aim is to achieve 
power under the pretext of carrying 
out its programme. And yet, democra- 
tically, none of these parties should 
govern the whole people because of the 
diversity of interests, ideas, tempera- 
ments, localities and beliefs, which 
constitute the people's identity. The 
party is a dictatorial instrument of 
governing that enables those with one 
outlook and a common interest to rule 
the people as a whole. Compared with 
the people, the party is a minority. 

The purpose of forming a party is to 
create an instrument to rule the peo- 
ple; namely to rule over non-members 
of the party. For the party is, fun- 
damentally, based on an arbitrary au- 
thoritarian theory . . . i.e. the domi- 
nation of the members of the party 
over the rest of individual members of 
the people. The party presupposes that 

IThe party 
system aborts 

ITo make a 
Iparty you 
Isplit society 

its accession to power is the way to 
attain its ends, assuming that its objec- 
tives are the objectives of the people. 
That is the theory of the justification of 
party dictatorship, which is the basis 
for any dictatorship. No matter how 
many parties there are, the theory 
remains one and the same. But the 
existence of many parties escalates 
the struggle for power and this results 
in the destruction of any achievements 
of the people and of any socially benefi- 
cial plans. Such destruction is seized 
upon by the opposition party as a 
justification to undermine the position 
of the ruling party so that it may take 
over from them. The parties in their 
struggle resort, if not to arms, which 
rarely happens, then to denouncing 
and stultifying the actions of each 
other. This is a battle which is inevit- 
ably waged at the expense of the high- 
er and vital interests of the society. 
Some, if not all, of those higher in- 
terests will be victims of the power 
struggle of instruments of governing. 
For the destruction of those interests 
supports the opposition party or par- 
ties in their argument against the rul- 
ing party. The opposition party, as an 
instrument of governing, has to oust 
the ruling body in order to have access 
to authority. To prove the unfitness of 
the instrument of governing, the oppo- 
sition party has to destroy its achieve- 
ments and to cast doubt on its plans, 
even if those plans are beneficial to the 
society. Consequently the interests and 
programmes of the society become 
victims of the parties' struggle for 
power. Such struggle is, therefore, 
politically, socially and economically 
destructive to the society, despite the 
fact that it creates political activity. 
Besides, the struggle results in the 
victory of another instrument of gov- 

erning, i.e., the fall of one party and 
the rise of another. But it is a defeat for 
the people, a defeat for democracy. 
Furthermore, parties can be bought or 
bribed either from inside or outside. 

Originally, the party is formed to 
represent the people. Then the leading 
group of the party represents its mem- 
bers and the supreme leader of the 
party represents the leading group. It 
becomes clear that the party game is a 
deceitful farce based on a sham form 
of democracy which has a selfish con- 
tent based on manoeuvres, tricks and 
political games. All these emphasise 
that the party-system is a dictatorial, 
yet modern, instrument. The party 
system is an overt, not a covert, dicta- 
torship. The world has not yet passed 
beyond it and it is rightly called 'the 
dictatorship of the modern age'. 

The parliament of the winning party 
is indeed a parliament of the party, as 
the executive power assigned by this 
parliament is the power of the party 
over the people. Party power, which is 
supposed to be for the good of the whole 
people, is actually a bitter enemy of a 
part of the people, namely the opposi- 
tion party or parties and their suppor- 
ters. So the opposition is not a popular 
check on the ruling party, but is itself 
seeking a chance to replace the ruling 
party. According to modern democra- 
cy, the legal check on the ruling party 
is the parliament, the majority of 
whose members are from that ruling 
party. That is to say, checking is in the 
hands of the ruling party and rule is in 
the hands of the checking party. Thus 
become clear the deceptiveness, falsi- 
ty and invalidity of the political 
theories dominant in the world today, 
from which contemporary traditional 
democracy emerges. 

The party is only a part of the people. 

but the sovereignty of the people is 

The party governs on behalf of the 
people, but the principle is no represen- 
tation in lieu of the people. 

The party system is the modern 
tribal and sectarian system. The socie- 
ty governed by one party is exactly like 
that which is governed by one tribe or 
one sect. The party, as stated above, 
represents the outlook of a certain 
group of people, or the interests of one 
group of the society, or one belief or 
one locality. Such a party must be a 
minority compared to the whole people 
just as the tribe and the sect are. The 
minority has common interests or a 
sectarian belief. From such interests 
or belief, the common outlook is 
formed. Only blood-relationship dis- 
tinguishes a tribe from a party and 
even at the foundation of a party there 
may be blood-relationship. There is no 
difference between party struggles 
and tribal or sectarian struggles for 
power. And if tribal and sectarian rule 
is politically rejected and disavowed, 
then the party system must similarly 
be rejected and disavowed. Both of 
them tread the same path and lead to 
the same end. The negative and des- 
tructive effect on the society of the 
tribal and sectarian struggles is iden- 
tical to the negative and destructive 
effect of the party struggle. 

Chapter Four 


The class political system is the 
same as the party, the tribal, or secta- 
rian system, i.e. a class dominates the 
society in the same way that a party, 
tribe or sect does. The class, like the 
party, sect and tribe, is a group of 
people from the society who share 
common interests. Common interests 
arise from the existence of a group of 
people bound together by blood- 
relationship, belief, culture, locality or 
standard of living. Also class, party, 
sect and tribe emerge from similar 
factors leading to similar results, i.e. 
they emerge because blood- 
relationship, belief, standard of living 
culture and locality create a common 
outlook to achieve a common end. Thus 
emerges the social structure in the 
forms of class, party, tribe or sect that 
eventually becomes a political concep- 
tion directed toward realising the out- 
look and ends of that group. In all cases 
the people are neither the class, the 
party, the tribe nor the sect; these are 
no more than a part of the people and 
constitute a minority. If a class, party, 
tribe or sect dominates a society, the 
whole system becomes a dictatorship. 
However, a class or tribal coalition is 
better than a party coalition because 
the people consist originally of a group 
of tribes. One seldom finds people who 
do not belong to a tribe, and all people 
belong to a certain class. But no party 
or parties embrace all the people and 
therefore the party or party coalition 
represents a minority compared to the 
masses outside its membership. Under 
genuine democracy there is no excuse 

for one class to crush other classes for 
its own benefit, no excuse for one party 
to crush other parties for its own in- 
terests, no excuse for one tribe to crush 
other tribes for its own benefit and no 
excuse for one sect to crush other sects 
for its own interests. 

To allow such actions means aban- 
doning the logic of democracy and 
resorting to the logic of force. Such an 
action is dictatorial, because it is not in 
the interest of the whole society, which 
does not consist of only one class or 
tribe or sect or the members of one 
party. There is no justification for such 
an action. The dictatorial justification 
is that the society is actually made up 
of various parts, and one of the parts 
undertakes the liquidation of other 
parts in order to stand solely in power. 
This action is then not in the interest of 
the whole society, but in the interest of 
a certain class, tribe, sect or party, 
i.e., it is in the interest of those who 
replace the society. The action of li- 
quidation is originally directed against 
the members of the society who do not 
belong to the party, the class, the tribe 
or the sect which undertakes the li- 

The society torn apart by party 
struggles is similar to one torn by 
tribal and sectarian struggles. 

The party that is formed in the name 
of a class automatically becomes a 
substitute for that class and continues 
until it becomes a replacement for the 
class hostile to it. 

Any class which becomes heir to a 
society, inherits, at the same time, its 
characteristics. That is to say that if 
the working class crushes all other 
classes, for instance, it becomes heir of 
the society, that is, it becomes the 
material and social base of the society. 
The heir bears the traits of the one he 

inherits from, though they may not be 
evident at once. As time passes, attri- 
butes of other eliminated classes 
emerge in the very ranks of the work- 
ing class. And the possessors of those 
characteristics take the attitudes and 
points of view appropriate to their 
characteristics. Thus the working 
class turns out to be a separate society, 
showing the same contradictions as the 
old society. The material and moral 
standards of the members of the socie- 
ty are diverse at first but then there 
emerge the factions that automatically 
develop into classes, like those which 
had been eliminated. Thus the struggle 
for domination of the society starts 
again. Each group of people, then each 
faction and finally each new class, 
tries to become the instrument of gov- 

The material base of the society is 
not stable because it has a social 
aspect. The instrument of governing of 
the single material base of the society 
will, perhaps, be stable for some time, 
but it will pass away as soon as new 
material and social standards emerge 
out of the same single material base. 
Any society with class conflict was in 
the past a one-class society but, due to 
inevitable evolution, the conflicting 
classes emerged from that one class. 

The class that expropriates the pos- 
sessions of others in order to maintain 
the instrument of governing for its own 
interests, will find that material pos- 
sessions have brought within that class 
what material possessions usually 
bring about within the society as a 

In short, attempts to unify the mate- 
rial base of the society to solve the 
problem of government or to put an 
end to the struggle in favour of party, 
class, sect or tribe, have failed, such as 

the efforts to satisfy the masses 
through the election of representatives 
or by organising plebiscites to discover 
their views. To go on with these efforts 
has become a waste of time and a 
mockery of the people. 

Chapter Five 


Plebiscites are a fraud against IThe fallacy of 

democracy. Those who say 'yes' and la 'Yes' or 'No' 

those who say 'no' do not, in fact, IPlebiscite 

express their will. They have been 
silenced through the conception of 
modern democracy. They have been 
allowed to utter only one word: either 
'yes' or 'no'. This is the most cruel and 
oppressive dictatorial system. He who 
says 'no' should give reasons for his 
answer. He should explain why he did 
not say 'yes'. And he who says 'yes' 
should give reasons for approval and 
why he did not say 'no'. Everyone 
should make clear what he wants and 
the reasons for his approval or rejec- 

What road, then, must human groups 
take to get rid, once and for all, of the 
tyrannical and dictatorial ages? 

Since the intricate problem in the 
case of democracy is the instrument of 
governing, expressed by conflicts of 
classes, parties and individuals; and 
since the electoral and plebiscite 
methods were invented to cover the 
failure of those unsuccessful experi- 
ments to solve this problem, the solu- 
tion lies in finding an instrument of 
governing other than these which are 
subject to conflict and which represent 
only one side of the society. That is to 
say, an instrument of governing which 
is not a party, a class, a sect or a tribe, 
but an instrument of governing which 
is the people as a whole. It neither 
represents the people nor speaks in 
their name. 

No representation in lieu of the people 
and representation is fraud. If that 

instrument can be brought into being 
the problem will be solved, popular 
democracy will be realised, mankind 
will have put an end to tyrannical eras 
and dictatorial systems, and the au- 
thority of the people will have taken 
their place. 

The Green Book presents the solution 
to the problem of the instrument of 
governing. It indicates for the people 
the way to pass from the eras of 
dictatorship to the eras of genuine 

This new theory is based on the 
authority of the people, without repre- 
sentation or deputation. It realises 
direct democracy in an orderly and 
effective form. It differs from the older 
attempt at direct democracy, which 
could not be applied in practice and 
which was frivolous because it lacked 
popular organisation on the lower 

Chapter Six 


Popular congresses are the only 
means to achieve popular democracy. 
Any system of government other than 
popular congresses is undemocratic. 
All the prevailing systems of govern- 
ment in the world today are undemo- 
cratic, unless they adopt this method. 
Popular congresses are the end of the 
journey of the masses' movement in its 
quest for democracy. 

Popular congresses and people's 
committees are the final fruit of the 
people's struggle for democracy. 
Popular congresses and people's com- 
mittees are not creations of the imagi- 
nation so much as they are the product 
of human thought which has absorbed 
all human experiments to achieve 
democracy. Direct democracy is the 
ideal method, which, if realised in 
practice, is indisputable and noncon- 
troversial. The nations departed from 
direct democracy because, however 
small a people might be, it was impos- 
sible to gather them all together at one 

INo democracy 

time in order to discuss, study and 
decide on their policy. Direct democra- 
cy remained an Utopian idea far from 
reality. It has been replaced by various 
theories of government such as repre- 
sentative assemblies, parties, coali- 
tions, and plebiscites. All led to the 
isolation of the people from political 
activity and to the plundering of the 
sovereignty of the people and the 
assumption of their authority by the 

successive and conflicting instruments 
of governing beginning with the indi- 
vidual, on through the class, the sect, 
the tribe, the parliament and the party. 




S V '^ L 


- "^^^f^^"' 


C— l| Pt^pto's Ccf¥TffT*t1iHnil vi4Hff HiihEznculin ^it{:!i'im 
_^ •jd^ncuiiLFA, Educ^on. Hwlt'L Houalnu. ClC.I 

1^1 ^^ty]lc^ab#Ol Ajdb£^l«ion or Unlpii 

The Green Book announces to the 
people the happy discovery of the way 
to direct democracy, in a practical 
form. Since no two intelligent people 
can dispute the fact that direct demo- 
cracy is the ideal — but its method has 
been impossible to apply — and since 
this Third Universal Theory provides 
us with a realistic experiment in direct 
democracy, the problem of democracy 
in the world is finally solved. All that 
the masses need do now is to struggle 
to put an end to all forms of dictatorial 

rule in the world today, to all forms of 
what is falsely called democracy — 
from parliaments to the sect, the tribe, 
the class and to the one-party, the 
two-party and the multi-party sys- 

Democracy has but one method and 
one theory. The disparity and dissimi- 
larity of the systems claiming to be 
democratic is evidence that they are 
not democratic in fact. The people's 
authority has only one face and it can 
be realised only by one method, name- 
ly, popular congresses and people's 
committees. No democracy without 
popular congresses and committees 

First, the people are divided into 
basic popular congresses. Each basic 
popular congress chooses its secretar- 
iat. The secretariats together form 
popular congresses, which are other 
than the basic ones. Then the masses of 
those basic popular congresses choose 
administrative people's committees to 
replace government administration. 
Thus all public utilities are run by 
people's committees which will be re- 
sponsible to the basic popular congres- 
ses and these dictate the policy to be 
followed by the people's committees 
and supervise its execution. Thus, both 
the administration and the supervision 
become popular and the outdated de- 
finition of democracy — Democracy is 
the supervision of the government by 
the people — comes to an end. It will be 
replaced by the right definition Demo- 
cracy is the supervision of the people by 

All citizens who are members of 
those popular congresses belong, pro- 
fessionally and functionally, to cate- 
gories. They have, therefore, to estab- 
lish their own unions and syndicates in 

addition to being, as citizens, members 
of the basic popular congresses or the 
people's committees. Subjects discus- 
sed by basic popular congresses or the 
people's committees, syndicates and 
unions, will take their final shape in the 
General People's Congress, where the 
secretariats of popular congresses, 
people's committees, syndicates and 
unions meet. What is drafted by the 
General People's Congress, which 
meets annually or periodically, will, in 
turn, be submitted to popular congres- 
ses, people's committees, syndicates 
and unions. The people's committees, 
responsible to the basic popular con- 
gresses will, then, start executive ac- 
tion. The General People's Congress is 
not a gathering of members or ordin- 
ary persons as is the case with parlia- 
ments. It is a gathering of the basic 
popular congresses, the people's com- 
mittees, the unions, the syndicates and 
all professional associations. 

In this way, the problem of the in- 
strument of governing is, as a matter 
of fact, solved and dictatorial instru- 
ments will disappear. The people are 
the instrument of governing and the 
problem of democracy in the world is 
completely solved. 

Chapter Seven 


Law is the other problem parallel to 
the problem of the instrument of gov- 
erning. It has not yet been solved in the 
modern age although it has been 
solved at certain periods of history. 

It is invalid and undemocratic for a 
committee or a parliament to be enti- 
tled to draft the law for the society. It is 
also invalid and undemocratic for an 
individual, a committee or a parlia- 
ment to amend or abrogate the law of 
the society. 

What, then, is the law of the society? 
Who drafts it and what is its import- 
ance to democracy? 

The natural law of any society is 
either tradition (custom) or religion. 
Any other attempt to draft law for any 
society, outside these two sources, is 
invalid and illogical. Constitutions are 
not the law of the society. A constitu- 
tion is a basic man-made law. That 
basic man-made law should have a 
source for its justification. The prob- 
lem of freedom in the modern age is 
that constitutions have become the law 
of society, and constitutions are based 
on nothing other than the views of the 
instruments of the dictatorial rule pre- 
vailing in the world, ranging from the 
individual to the party. The proof of 
this is that there is a difference be- 
tween constitutions although man's 
freedom is the same. The reason for 
the difference is the disparity in the 
conceptions of the instruments of gov- 
erning. This is the point where freedom 
is vulnerable in the systems of the 
contemporary world. The method by 
which the instruments of governing 

seek to dominate the peoples is estab- 
lished in the constitution and the peo- 
ple are compelled to accept it under 
the force of laws derived from that 
constitution, which is itself the product 
of the temperament and outlook of the 
instrument of governing. 

The law of the dictatorial instru- 
ments of governing has replaced natu- 
ral law. Because man-made law has 
replaced natural law, standards are 
lost. Man is the same everywhere. His 
physical constitution is the same and 
so is his instinct. For this reason natu- 
ral law became a logical law for man 
as one and the same. Then the constitu- 
tions, which are man-made laws, be- 
gan to look at man as not one and the 
same. They have no justification for 
that conception other than the will of 
instruments of governing — the indi- 
vidual, the parliament, the tribe or the 
party — to dominate the peoples. So we 
see that constitutions are usually 
changed when the instruments of gov- 
erning change. This proves that the 
constitution is the product of the tem- 
perament of the instruments of gov- 
erning and exists to serve their in- 
terests. It is not natural law. This is the 
impending danger to freedom latent 
wherever the genuine law of human 
society is absent and is replaced by 
man-made laws designed by the instru- 
ment of governing to rule the masses. 
Properly the method of government 
should be in accordance with the laws 
of society, not vice versa. 

Therefore, the law of the society is 
not subject to drafting and codifica- 
tion. The significance of law lies in the 
fact that it is the decisive factor which 
distinguishes between the true and 
false, the right and the wrong, and the 
individuals' rights and duties. Free- 
dom is threatened unless society has a 

sacred law based on stable rules which 
are not subject to change or substitu- 
tion by any instrument of governing. 
On the contrary, it is incumbent upon 
the instrument of governing to abide 
by the law of society. Nevertheless, 
peoples throughout the world are now 
being ruled by man-made laws that are 
liable to change and abrogation be- 
cause of the struggle for power be- 
tween instruments of governing. Ple- 
biscites on constitutions are not enough 
because plebiscites in themselves are 
a sham democracy, permitting only 
yes or no. Under man-made laws, peo- 
ples are compelled to accept plebis- 
cites. A plebiscite on a constitution 
does not mean that it is the law of 
society, it means that it is only a 
constitution, or that 'thing' subject to 
plebiscite, nothing else. 

The law of the society is an eternal 
human heritage that is not the posses- 
sion of the living only. Hence, the 
drafting of a constitution and holding a 
plebiscite by present voters are far- 

Encyclopedias of man-made laws 
derived from man-made constitutions 
are full of material penalties against 
man while traditional law seldom has 
these penalties. Traditional law im- 
poses moral, not material penalties, 
that are appropriate for man. Religion 
embraces and absorbs tradition. Most 
material penalties in religion are post- 
poned until the Day of Judgement. The 
major part of its rules are exhorta- 
tions, instructions and answers to 
questions. This law shows proper re- 
spect to man. Religion does not ack- 
nowledge temporal penalties, except in 
extreme cases where these are neces- 
sary to protect society. 

Religion embraces tradition, which 
is an expression of the natural life of 

the peoples. Thus, religion, embracing 
tradition, is an affirmation of natural 
law. Non-religious, non-traditional 
laws are invented by one man for use 
against another. Therefore they are 
invalid because they are not built upon 
the natural source of tradition and 

Chapter Eight 


The question that arises is: who 
preserves the society from any devia- 
tion from the law? Democratically, 
there is no group whatever that can 
claim the right of representative su- 
pervision over the society. 'Society is 
its own supervisor.' Any pretension by 
any individual or group that it is re- 
sponsible for law is dictatorship. 
Democracy means the responsibility 
of the whole society, and supervision 
should be carried out by the whole 
society. That is democracy and its 
proper implementation is through the 
democratic instrument of governing, 
resulting from the organization of soci- 
ety itself in basic popular congresses 
and from the people's rule through the 
popular congresses and the General 
People's Congress (National Congress) 
in which come together the popular 
congresses, administrative people's 
committees, unions, syndicates and all 
other professional organizations. 

According to this theory, the people 
are the instrument of governing and in 
this case they are their own super- 
visor. In this way self-supervision of 
the society over its law is realized. 

Chapter Nine 


If an instrument of governing is 
dictatorial, as in political systems in 
the world today, the society's vigilance 
towards deviation from law will have 
only one way to gain readjustment. 
That is violence, which means revolu- 
tion against the instrument of gov- 
erning. This violence or revolution, 
even if it is an expression of the feeling 
of the society against deviation, is not 
carried out by the whole society. It is 
undertaken only by those who have the 
initiative and boldness to proclaim the 
will of the society. However, this 
approach is the way to dictatorship, for 
this revolutionary initiative increases 
the opportunity for an instrument of 
governing, representative of the peo- 
ple, to arise. This means that the 
instrument of governing is still dictato- 
rial. Moreover, violence and change by 
force are themselves undemocratic, 
although they take place as a result of 
the existence of a previous undemocra- 
tic situation. The society that is still 
entangled around this resultant is a 
backward society. What, then, is the 

The solution is for the people to be 
the instrument of governing from 
basic popular congresses to the Gener- 
al People's Congress. The government 
administration is abolished and re- 
placed by people's committees. The 
General People's Congress should be a 
national congress where basic popular 
congresses, people's administrative 

committees, unions, syndicates and all 
professional associations come 
together. If a deviation from the socie- 
ty's law takes place under this system, 
it should be dealt with through a demo- 
cratic revision rather than by force. 
This is not a process of voluntary 
choice of the method of change or of 
treatment, rather it is an inevitable 
result of the nature of such a democra- 
tic system. In such a case, there is no 
outside group against which violent 
action may be directed or which may 
be held responsible for deviation. 

Chapter Ten 


The natural person has freedom to 
express himself even if, when he is 
mad, he behaves irrationally to ex- 
press his madness. The corporate per- 
son also is free to express his corporate 
identity. In these cases, the first repre- 
sents only himself, and the second 
represents no more than the group of 
natural persons composing his corpo- 
rate person. The society consists of 
many natural and many corporate per- 
sons. Therefore, when a person, for 
instance, expresses himself in an irra- 
tional manner, that does not mean that 
the other persons of the society also 
are mad. The expression of a natural 
person is only self-expression, and that 
of a corporate person is only the ex- 
pression of the interests or viewpoints 
of persons forming the corporate per- 
son. For example, the company for the 
production and sale of tobacco only 
expresses the interests of the partici- 

Ipopular rule 
Inot popular 

pants in that company, i.e. those who 
benefit from the production and sale of 
tobacco although it is harmful to the 
health of others. 

The press is a means of expression of 
the society and is not a means of 
expression of a natural or corporate 
person. Logically and democratically, 
the press, therefore, cannot be owned 

by either of these. 

Any newspaper owned by an indi- 
vidual is his own and expresses only 
his point of view. Any claim that a 
newspaper represents public opinion is 
groundless because it actually ex- 
presses the viewpoints of a natural 
person. Democratically, a natural per- 
son should not be permitted to own any 
means of publication or information. 
However he has the natural right to 
express himself by any means, even if 
it is in an irrational manner to prove 
his madness. Any journal issued by a 
trading association or by a chamber of 
commerce is only a means of express- 
ion for this particular social group. It 
presents its own point of view and not 
the viewpoint of public opinion. This 
applies to all other corporate and natu- 
ral persons in society. The democratic 
press is that which is issued by a 
popular committee comprising all the 
various categories of society. In this 
case only, and not otherwise, will the 
press or any information medium be 
an expression of the whole society and 
a bearer of the viewpoint of its categor- 
ies and thereby the press or informa- 
tion medium will be indeed demo- 

If the Medical Association issues a 
journal, it must be purely medical. 
Similarly this applies to other categor- 
ies. The natural person has the right to 
express only himself and he is not 

entitled from the democratic point of 
view to express anybody else. In this 
way, what is called the problem of 
press freedom in the world will be 
solved radically and democratically. 
The continuing problem of press free- 
dom in the world today is generally the 
product of the problem of democracy. 
It cannot be solved unless the entire 
crisis of democracy in the whole socie- 
ty is solved. Only the Third Universal 

Theory can solve the intricate problem 
of democracy. 

According to this theory, the demo- 
cratic system is a cohesive structure 
whose foundations are firmly laid on 
basic popular congresses, people's 
committees and professional associa- 
tions. All these come together in the 
General People's Congress. Absolute- 
ly, there is no other conception for a 
genuine democratic society. 

Finally, the era of the masses, which 
approaches us at a rapid pace follow- 
ing the era of the republics, inflames 
the feelings and dazzles the eyes. As 
much as this era gladly announces the 
real freedom of the masses and their 
happy emancipation from the shackles 
of instruments of governing so much it 
warns of the approach of an age of 
anarchy and demagogy if the new 
democracy, which is the authority of 
the people, does not relapse and the 
authority of the individual, class, tribe, 
sect or party again comes to pre- 

Theoretically, this is the genuine 
democracy. But realistically, the 
strong always rule, i.e., the stronger 
part in the society is the one that rules.